The Morality Of Normality And Relativism

964 Words2 Pages

Can we assume an action is moral just because it is normal and accepted by the majority of people? According to moral relativism, the answer is yes! Relativism is the belief that says moral principles are valid, but are different by individuals (subjectivism) or by culture (conventionalism). Conventionalists like Ruth Benedict claim that cultures cannot judge one another, since they have different principles (Pojman, 514). On the other hand, Pojman argues that there are some serious issues with relativism. One example is tolerance with cultures that have different principles. Since there are no standards of principles according to relativism, being tolerant is not better than being intolerant, and here relativists fail to criticize intolerance. Moral relativism contradicts itself by saying there are no universal norms and cultures should not judge or criticize one another while appealing to the principle of tolerance as a universal one. …show more content…

In other words, any socially acceptable behavior that is viewed as normal is also good. All of the different moralities are equally valid. Using the argument of “normality”, every culture decides what action is right, to suit the majority. Then those people live with what they define as normal and the minority then become different and abnormal (Pojman, 518). Benedict emphasizes that moral and ethical relativism occurs as a response to differences in cultures naturally (Pojman, 518-519). Subjectivism is the extreme end of relativism. This belief makes mortality determined by individuals, not society or universe. Therefore, what you believe in is the only moral principles, and all principles are equally

Open Document